More on Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”

About a month and a half ago I wrote a post on the quadrilateral that focused on Albert Outler’s (the one who coined the phrase) understanding of John Wesley’s understanding of experience. There were many lively reactions to the post here and in various other places online. It provided a helpful, if disheartening, reminder that many contemporary Methodists see the quadrilateral as what is most distinctive about Methodism. Today I received the most perceptive question about Outler’s understanding of experience I have received thus far. I responded to the question at the original post, but because of the length of my response and the importance of the question, I wanted to publish it as its own post for broader engagement. Here is the question, which was from Brandon Blacksten:

Kevin, I’m late to this party, but I’m having trouble seeing how experience construed in the way Outler puts forth is useful or relevant to theological reflection. In the blockquote above from Outler, I understand his descriptions of Wesley’s use of the Bible, tradition, and reason, but it is not at all clear to me how assurance of pardon might “clinch the matter” in a theological discussion. Maybe Outler clarifies this elsewhere in the essay. Could you perhaps provide an example of how experience construed in this way would play out in theological reflection?

My response:

From where I’m sitting, my post “Experience in the so-called ‘Wesleyan Quadrilateral’” has been one of the most misunderstood posts I have written (which may say more about the author of the post than the audience). My intention was to flesh out Albert Outler’s understanding of Wesley’s understanding of experience. The reason for doing so was to shine a light on how different contemporary uses of experience in the quadrilateral are from the intended use of the person who created the quadrilateral (Outler). Many over-read my initial post, assuming that what I was really saying was that experience is bad, or illegitimate, etc.

I appreciate your perceptive question. On Outler’s understanding of experience, it is difficult to see what the role of Christian experience is in theological reflection. My sense is that part of what Outler is saying is that, for Wesley, the experience of new birth gives people a new set of sense experience (spiritual senses, by which we perceive our adoption as God’s children) and that this experience helps us to better know God, and choose between “contrary positions.”

So, when choosing between two contrary positions, Christian experience would be an essential aid in your discernment – it could be thought of as being like glasses that help you see more clearly the two positions and what their implications are. My sense is that what most contemporary Methodists do when they deploy experience as a general category is that they use their life experience to ask which of the two contrary positions makes the most sense in light of what they know about life and the people around them. In this sense, it doesn’t seem to function as spiritual discernment but more as common sense (which is even more odd, because if it were truly common sense, why the contrary positions in the first place?). Experience as it is most often used today also appears to function as a category that does not need to be informed or infused by Christian content.

I could be wrong, but my reading of Outler’s understanding of Wesley’s understanding of experience is that experience would not actually add much in theological reflection, at least as far as bringing new content to the table. He does not think that your general life experience provides new content that you can legitimately set alongside the Scriptures, for example. In fact, Outler clearly ruled out pitting experience against Scripture.

When I read Outler himself, I was surprised at how clear he was on this point, because it seems to me that this is precisely the main reason the quadrilateral is deployed. Instead, Outler is saying that Wesley added Christian experience to the Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition, and reason because he felt that people were missing the basic reality that theological reflection is not agnostic or secular. It is done by Christians, those who have experienced awakening, justification by faith, the new birth, and in whom the Spirit witnesses with their spirits that they are children of God.

It is entirely possible that Outler’s reading of Wesley is wrong. But, at least from this essay written well after his initial statement of the quadrilateral, this is the way that Outler himself defined and limited the use of experience in the method for theological reflection that he created (because of what he thought Wesley meant by experience).

My main motivation in the original post was to try increase awareness within the UMC (and other parts of the Church that lift up the quadrilateral as a helpful tool for theological reflection) that the way that we are currently using the quadrilateral is in many ways profoundly different from and perhaps even contrary to the intended use of its creator.

Kevin M. Watson is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology & Wesleyan Studies at Seattle Pacific University. You can keep up with this blog on twitter @kevinwatson or on facebook at Vital Piety.

Post navigation

7 thoughts on “More on Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral””

I agree that much misunderstanding has crept into UM discussions surrounding the category of experience in the Quadrilateral, but I actually think Wesley’s view is pretty clear when placed against the backdrop of his time. Two points:

1. Wesley was shaped by German pietism, which itself emerged in the context of formalistic, doctrinaire Lutheranism. “Faith” meant “agreement with a set of propositions.” The leaders of German pietism advocated for living faith, a faith that actually functioned in life, one based on new birth in Christ and change of heart, etc.

2. Wesley was worried about the formalism of Anglicanism, as well as a kind of “do the best you can” morality also in the church and society, not to mention the church’s distance from the poor. In this sense, “experience” perhaps could be rendered “application” of scriptural truth to heart and life.

All that to say that the use of experience in most UM discussions these days is so badly wide of the mark as to render “experience” essentially useless as a point of departure for a conversation.

It’s been too long since I’ve read Outler to make comment on him, but two related ideas come to mind.

1. When we sing “Long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound by sin and nature’s night…” I think not only of an allusion to Peter’s experience in the Book of Acts but also to the person chained in Plato’s Cave. Insofar as theology depends on some sort of epistemology, our experience of the “quickening ray” has epistemological consequences for our work in theology.
2. I also think of the General Rules. Though sometimes reduced to ethics (“here are the things God wants you to do”), they are framed epistemologically. Our living out these rules gives evidence of who we really are and there we stand. If theology is at least partially the work of discerning our way through the narrative of God’s ongoing action, this dimension of experience could be very helpful.

I wonder. Pushing back on the question – what would then count as a valid Christian experience? Is experience determined by reason, scripture, or tradition? How would you account for Pentecostal experiences and more so for those who haven’t had a Pentecostal experience?

One thing I remind people is that experience of holiness can come in a variety of ways and forms. I have congregation members that believe strongly in the power of Cursillo or Emmaus movements. For them that IS the Christian experience. While others of us have very deep experiences in monasteries and singing liturgies with Anglican chants. Still others have moving encounters through mission work, and are able to see Jesus in the faces of those who they serve.

I do think Wesley and to a lesser extent Outler envisioned experience as one of being convicted in the heart, but how can we account for a broader experience of this conviction today? The next step then is how does this conviction transform our lenses in which we return to scripture, tradition, and reason?

Agree that “common sense” isn’t what is mean by experience – although expediency was a Wesleyan principle.

BUT the statement that “experience” refers to this Outler quote – “It was, as he knew for himself, the vital Christian experience of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven that clinched the matter.” – is a pale shadow of the energy that gripped the early Methodists such that they were called “enthusiasts.”

Enthusiasm – en theos – in God, in Christ – is an emotional experience. Psychology, quite a latecomer to the sciences, would suggest that experience has to do with “feelings” – and that feelings are vitally important. When we remove feelings from the equation, we have depression or something kin to it.

Early Methodists believed in a genuine, heartfelt, actual, emotional experience of the presence of God. Wesley in Sermon #1 makes it very clear:

It may start with an awareness of the forgiveness of sins, but it certainly goes far beyond that box of the reformation, where the primary concern was whether one attains salvation by works or grace. Again and again in the Journal, Wesley records his emotions, and his faith was an emotional faith. This is a healthy balance to the continual downward slide of enthusiastic movements into formal scholasticism – they lose their emotion and their enthusiasm. All of this emotional energy comes AFTER the assurance of sins forgiven … it is found along the road while going onward to perfection.

A biblical faith, a thoughtful faith, and a traditional faith is a good faith – but that is not new. This sort of faith was the norm for centuries. Such a faith, however, is like a candle that has not yet been lit – Wesley’s contribution was to bring an emotional fire to this faith without diminishing the value of the Bible, reason or tradition. (The Jesuits and the German Pietists had also brought in emotional viewpoints.)

The Bible, reason and tradition help keep Wesleyan enthusiasm in balance. I agree with the statement that “experience” is Wesley’s desire to “incorporate the notion of conversion into the Anglican tradition.” All of this emotional energy comes AFTER the assurance of sins forgiven … it is found along the road while going onward to perfection. In this understanding of conversion, it’s far more than the moment of assurance or whether one is “born again” (either/or) but closer to the Benedictine understanding of “conversatio morum” – the full conversion of life, to be fully converted … perhaps close to a synonym of Wesley’s going on to perfection.

Stephen, you raise some good questions. My initial reaction is that Outler is working with a more specific understanding of Christian experience than you are describing. It is the very particular experience of the witness of the Spirit, where one “hears” of their adoption as a child of God. Maybe you have had other experiences than I have, but in my experience with mission work, though it definitely can be very moving (as you say), people are not usually saying that they experienced the confirmation that they are God’s beloved child through such experience. (This is not to say that these experiences are bad or invalid! I am just trying to flesh out the precision with which Outler seems to be using the phrase “Christian experience.”) So, to your comments more broadly, I’m also suggesting that Outler was talking about something more specific than being convicted. And again, Outler may have gotten Wesley wrong here. But that would be a very different post.

David, I’m not entirely sure I follow the implications of your comments. I was not intending to suggest that “Christian experience” as Outler understood it was cold and formal, or lacking emotion. On the contrary, the experience of assurance was one of the most “emotional” experiences that early Methodists had. It was when the received the peace and comfort they had been searching for.